IS IT TRUE? February 1, 2011 PART 2

IS IT TRUE that the unedited six page memo published yesterday by the City County Observer that Mayor Weinzapfel sent to the entire Evansville City Council was dated January 31, 2011 and was distributed via email to the entire Council?…that this document contained 698kBytes of data?

IS IT TRUE that a six page memo of the same title was sent by Mayor Weinzapfel to only five members of the Evansville Council on Friday January 28, 2011?…that the members of Council who were sent this official memorandum by Mayor Weinzapfel three days before the other 4 members of Council were Curt John, B. J. Watts, Missy Mosby, Connie Robinson, and John Friend?…that John Friend actually served as the Mayor’s appointment on the Advisory Committee that was tasked to make the recommendation on who should manage the new Evansville Arena?

IS IT TRUE that all nine members of the Evansville City Council are elected by their respective constituents?…that each member of the City Council has one vote to cast in the best interest of their constituents?…that it is right and fair that all official memorandums sent by the Office of the Mayor of Evansville should be sent to ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS at the same time?…that we are puzzled at the purpose behind the Mayor’s decision to dole the information out to certain members of the Evansville City Council four days before a critical vote of the Redevelopment Commission?…that the other four members of the City Council had less than 24 hours to formulate an opinion about this critical decision?

IS IT TRUE that five votes can carry the vote on the Evansville City Council?…that the five members of the City Council who got the official memorandum on Friday are the block that seldom departs from Mayor Weinzapfel’s wishes?…that the four members of the Evansville City Council who were surprised by such a memo on Monday are the four who are more inclined to ask the tough questions instead of capitulating to the Mayor’s demands?…that we would really appreciate an explanation for this “divide and conquer” manipulation of the timing of the release of critical information by the Mayor?

IS IT TRUE that this tactic is both condescending and insulting to both groups of the Evansville City Council?…that it is insulting to be considered to be in someone else’s pocket?…that it is equally insulting to withhold information from elected officials hired by the people of Evansville to watch after their interests?…that the OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF EVANSVILLE STILL BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF EVANSVILLE?…that it is about time that the current occupant of that office starts to treat both the Office of Mayor that he is privileged to be an elected steward over and the members of the Evansville City Council with the respect that they deserve?

Dueling Press Releases Issued by Chamber and AFL-CIO

The City County Observer would like to make both press releases available to our readers in full so that each reader can develop their own opinion about Right to Work laws. We encourage all of our readers to elevate their awareness and think this through. This is a big decision for our state and should be deliberated to completion before taking action.

From the AFL-CIO

January 31, 2011
News Release

INDIANAPOLIS – Today Indiana State AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott issued the following statement responding the to the Indiana Chamber of Commerce’s “study” on the so-called right to work law.

“It is disappointing that at a time when we should be having an open and honest debate about building an economy that works for all Hoosiers, the Chamber would publish such misleading and distorted documents.

Despite the leading questions, the deceptively appealing slogans and the overinflated promises of jobs, the simple fact remains that this legislation will devastate Indiana’s working families. Based on experiences of other states we know that wages will be driven down, benefits will be cut, workplace safety will suffer and the overall quality of life will decline.

Given all the facts, this is something no Hoosier could ever support.

The Chamber clearly has its own agenda and will do and say whatever it takes to implement it. However, if Indiana is to achieve true economic sustainability we cannot always put profits before people and ideology before facts.

We must restore balance so that our businesses, communities and workers can all have access to economic opportunity and that’s why defeating the so-called right to work law is so important.”
The Indiana State AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations) is a federation of 800 local unions across the state belonging to 50 International Unions. In total, the Indiana State AFL-CIO represents more than 300,000 working Hoosiers.

For more information on please visit www.in.aflcio.org or call 1-800-638-1217.
Source: AFL-CIO

From the State Chamber of Commerce

January 31, 2011
News Release
January 31, 2011 (INDIANAPOLIS) — Improving the per-capita income of Indiana workers and creating more job opportunities for Hoosiers would be among the major benefits of Indiana becoming the 23rd state to pass a right-to-work (RTW) law, according to research released today. In addition, statewide voter polling results show Hoosiers favoring adoption of RTW by a 3-to-1 margin.
Dr. Richard Vedder, an Ohio University economist, and his colleagues report in the study (Right-to-Work and Indiana’s Economic Future) that if Indiana had adopted RTW in 1977, per-capita income would have been $2,925 higher – or $11,700 higher for a family of four – by 2008. Looking forward (projecting the same growth rate in the next 10 years after adjusting for inflation), passage of a RTW law in 2011 would raise per capita income by $968 – or $3,872 for a family of four – by 2021.

Site selection experts and economic development consultants around the country contend that at least one-third to as many as one-half of companies looking to grow businesses and add jobs will not even consider a non-RTW state. Also, the new study finds that nearly five million Americans left non-RTW states since 2000 to move to RTW states with increased job opportunities and higher economic growth rates.

“This is the single most important step Indiana lawmakers could take in putting more Hoosiers back to work,” states Mike Blakley, chairman and CEO of Indianapolis-based Blakley Corporation and 2011 chair of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce board of directors. “The Indiana Economic Development Corporation has done an outstanding job in its business attraction and expansion efforts, but a right-to-work law would open the door to hundreds of new deals and thousands of new jobs.”

The researchers note Indiana’s lagging economic numbers during the 31-year period (1977-2008):

Per-capita income growth:
RTW states, 62.3%;
United States average, 54.7%;
non-RTW states, 52.8%;
Indiana, 37.2%
Employment growth:
RTW states, 100%;
U.S. average, 71%;
non-RTW states, 56.5%;
Indiana, 42.8%
Growth in real personal income:
RTW states, 164.4%;
U.S. average, 114.2%;
non-RTW states, 92.8%;
Indiana, 62%

In the study, Vedder writes, “Our results suggest that the impact of a RTW law is to increase economic growth rates by 11.5%. The work (also) suggests that over two-thirds of the difference between Indiana and the national rates of economic growth in modern times is explainable by Indiana’s lack of a RTW law.”

He describes Indiana not adopting a RTW law, concluding, “Indiana has failed to avail itself of that opportunity and has paid a high economic price for not doing so as RTW laws attract productive resources (both capital and labor) to a state, while the absence of such laws repels them.”
The presence of a RTW law over that timeframe would have allowed Hoosier workers to earn $19 billion more in 2010. The additional state income and sales tax generated would have eliminated the state’s projected $1 billion deficit heading into the next two-year budget cycle.

A separate, scientific public opinion poll of 800 registered voters (conducted between December 14-21, 2010), found that by a 3-to-1 margin Indiana voters support passage of a RTW law. Respondents were asked: “Do you favor or oppose a right-to-work law for Indiana?” The results: 69% support; 23% oppose; 8% uncertain. Of the 69% in favor, 41% indicated their strong support.
Significant majorities of support exist across all demographics – including age, income, gender, occupation – and political identification. The support/oppose totals by political party: Republicans, 80%-13%; Independents, 74%-13%; and Democrats, 53%-37%. Even among union members, 44% were in support of a RTW law, with 48% opposed and 8% uncertain.

Asked to identify the single major problem facing Indiana now, 53% answered lack of jobs or low wages. Related responses such as “poor economy” and “loss of tax base” raise the level of the economy as the leading concern to 60%.

Indiana Chamber President Kevin Brinegar contends, “The impact numbers are clear in the analysis and Hoosiers are in strong support. This is the opportunity to further separate Indiana from its Midwest neighbors, make our state a prime contender for the economic projects we miss out on due to the lack of a right-to-work law and, most importantly, provide more jobs for Hoosier workers.”
Dr. Verne Kennedy, senior analyst for Market Research Insight, served as project director for the poll. Kennedy has conducted more than 100 public opinion surveys in Indiana over the past two decades.
The study was commissioned by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce Foundation; it is available online at www.indianachamber.com/studies-reports.

Source: Indiana Chamber of Commerce

The City County Observer is pleased to announce another month of record growth in readership and extends our thanks and gratitude to our readers both new and old. January marked a month that saw our readership jump to a new level, our servers crash, and our ranking rise to 8th among all websites for traffic in the Evansville area. Eleven of January’s 31 days resulted in traffic volumes that exceeded our highest previous day ever.

Accompanying the growth in traffic was a 33% increase in the time on site per visit another key metric that indicates satisfaction of our readers. Google Analytics reports the City County Observer performs at 303% of our peer website average in visits, 80% higher in average time on site, and 17% better on bounce rate. Bounce rate is the rate at which a reader exits a website after only viewing a single page and is considered to be the most important indicator of reader loyalty.

January also saw the launch of our “good news” publication called the Community Observer and the release of mobile versions of both publications. You may read the Community Observer with its new column that counters our flagship “IS IT TRUE” called “AIN’T IT GREAT”, that profiles the great things that happen each day in Greater Evansville at www.community-observer.com.

Finally January launched the City County Observer and the Community Observer into the airwaves with our exclusive agreement with Townsquare Media. Please tune in to AM 1280 and FM 105.3 to hear snippets of our feature columns.

Thank you all again for a great month to start 2011 and keep those comments coming as we all work together to promote GOOD PUBLIC POLICY in Greater Evansville.

IS IT TRUE that candidate for Vanderburgh County Auditor, Maura Robinson has corrected her campaign finance disclosure statement to reflect that she indeed received a $250 contribution from the Weinzapfel for Mayor Committee?…that now all of the discrepancies have been corrected and all of the checks and balances for local 2010 campaigns are in order?

IS IT TRUE that the Evansville Convention and Visitors Bureau is in the news again and that a new board of directors has been seated…that Steve Schaefer of the Chamber of Commerce was elected to be the president of the new board?…that Mr. Schaefer is known to be an honest and high energy man who works tirelessly for every mission he is given?…that he was welcomed to his first day on this volunteer job with yet another scandal involving the giving of gift cards to board members and employees during the Christmas season?…that this alleged practice has been going on for several years?…that both Mike Roeder and Kristin Tucker have returned the gift cards that they were given?

IS IT TRUE that there are also allegations that Christmas dinners are not the only extravagant spending soirees that the previous board of directors indulged themselves in?…that it is alleged that on several occasions bar bills al local establishments where the “beautiful people” gather have been the sites of some gatherings where the bar tab was nearly $800?…that Mr. Schaefer and the new board of directors needs to do their investigation, make full public disclosure, and put this entire chapter of excessive behavior behind this much needed entity?

IS IT TRUE that in today’s world that “you are what you Google”?…that right now when a candidate for the position of Executive Director of the ECVB that this job does not look like an attractive place to be?…that the country’s perception of Evansville based on the past year’s antics at the CVB do not make us look very good?…that Mr. Schaefer, his board, his acting Executive Director have a big job ahead of them to sanitize this perception?…that the City County Observer is supportive of the efforts of this agency and has confidence that given time, Mr. Schaefer will find a way to accomplish this task?

IS IT TRUE that the 5th Ward race for the Democratic nomination for Evansville City Council may just be having another hat thrown into the ring?…that a somewhat well known is considering making a run for this nomination and will let their intentions be known next week?…that this person is in favor of a comprehensive smokefree workplace ordinance?…that a door-to-door survey in the 5th Ward showed that 80% of the people who were surveyed support a comprehensive smokefree workplace ordinance for the City of Evansville?…that if the 5th Ward member of the Evansville City Council would have voted as his constituents wanted him to last March that Evansville would have a smokefree workplace ordinance now?…that the only discussion would be making it comprehensive?…that the 5th Ward is not the only Ward where the people of Evansville favor a comprehensive smokefree workplace ordinance?…that every vote against constituent wishes on this issue will have to be addressed over and over again by any incumbent that hopes to retain a seat on Council?

IS IT TRUE that Mayor Weinzapfel or some very skilled writer working on his behalf burned some serious midnight oil last weekend crafting a six page explanation about how VenueWorks came to be recommended to run the new Evansville Arena?…that this six page manifesto was quite critical of the performance of SMG?…that it even went so far as to disapprove of whomever SMG (a private entity) wanted to place in Evansville to do the general management?…that the Centre is owned and managed by the Vanderburgh County Commissioners?…that the Centre is still a state of the art venue and needs excellent management?…that in the event that SMG decides that the opportunities to manage non Arena venues is not large enough to meddle with, that once again the Centre and Vanderburgh County will suffer as a result of decisions coming from the City of Evansville?…that there was not one elected official representing the County Commissioners or the County Council appointed to the Advisory Committee by Mayor Weinzapfel?…that as the elected body responsible for the Centre that the County Commissioners should have been represented on this Advisory Committee?…that this sort of behavior on the part of the City of Evansville toward Vanderburgh County does not bode well for any unified government effort?

IS IT TRUE that it has now been 1,362 days since the announcement was made on May 14, 2007 that the McCurdy Hotel was to be refurbished into luxury apartments?…that it has now been 1,216 days since the Evansville Redevelopment Commission at the request of Mayor Weinzapfel approved the spending of $603,000 to purchase the parking lot?…that City Centre Properties and Scott Kosene the developers of the McCurdy project are both listed as contributors to the Weinzapfel for Mayor committee for 2010?

IS IT TRUE that there are now 648 days remaining in the two years that the EPA had given the City of Evansville to present an acceptable solution to the Combined Sewer Overflow problem?…..that this plan is an expensive and complex endeavor that needs immediate attention to avoid the embarrassment and expense of another round of fines?

The Case for Local Government Transparency: Evansville Style

By: Brent Grafton, Candidate for Evansville City Council from the 5th Ward

Local governments all over the country are realizing the benefits of being more transparent and seeing how transparency is directly related to effective governance. By being able to comprehensively engage their constituency, they are able to open up lines of communication which, as mentioned before, results in a more educated citizenry and better policy decisions. Transparency and governance intuitively just seem to go hand in hand. What is difficult to understand is with such an intuitive relationship, why is transparency so difficult to put into practice.

As an appointed member of the Evansville Board of Public Safety in Russell Lloyd Jr.’s administration, my fellow board members and I were subject to Indiana Code 5-14-1.5-2. That particular part of the Indiana’s law defines for us just what constitutes a meeting that must be announced and open to the public. There were also restrictions on having ad hoc meetings to discuss City of Evansville business. To put it bluntly, we were not allowed to make policy or spending decisions or even have discussions about such matters outside of an announced public forum. All of the appointed boards whether compensated or not were subject to these so called “sunshine” laws.

I recently became aware of a situation where the Mayor of Evansville appointed an Advisory Committee made up of citizens and a single elected official to make a recommendation on just who will manage the new Evansville Arena. It is also my understanding that the Advisory Committee’s recommendation will be made to the Evansville Redevelopment Commission whose members are appointed by the Mayor. It is furthermore my understanding that certain members of the Evansville City Council are not in agreement with the recommendation of the Advisory Committee or the process that it went through to reach it.

Managing the new Evansville Arena is an important financial decision to the people of Evansville. This decision will greatly affect the cash flow of the Arena and the ability of the City of Evansville to pay for the operations and make the bond payments according to the commitments that have been made by our elected City Council. To make the decision on what firm will be hired without public deliberation, while it technically may be legal, should have been conducted in the public forum.

Business leaders are not always aware of the details of public disclosure when asked to serve on committees. It is up to elected government officials who they choose to serve to advise them of such rules. It is also of paramount responsibility that elected officials embrace transparency as a way of conducting the business of government in all areas.

Transparency promotes accountability and provides an opportunity for residents to be better informed about what is going on in their communities.

Transparency creates an avenue for the public to start demanding more information, and this is generally considered a good thing.

Transparency promotes trust of local government among the people of Evansville. If the people of Evansville’s 5th Ward are generous enough to choose me as their next City Councilman, I pledge to be as transparent as the law allows and to expose any and every situation not only where sunshine laws apply but to where sunshine laws should apply.

First Public Meeting on the Issue of Arena Management at Tomorrow’s Evansville Redevelopment Commission Meeting

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Jonathan Weinzapfel
DATE: January 31, 2011
RE: Arena Management Contract Process

I am writing to address the process of selecting a company for the negotiation of a contract to manage the new Evansville arena in conjunction with the Evansville/Vanderburgh County Building Authority, all under the authority of the Evansville Redevelopment Commission.

In March 2010, the decision was made to have the Evansville/Vanderburgh County Building Authority (“BA”) assume responsibility for the maintenance tasks at Roberts Stadium, The Victory Theatre and Mesker Amphitheatre. In addition, the BA assumed direct supervisory responsibility for the City employees assigned to support the operations being managed by SMG at these facilities. The motivation for this change was a projected $300,000 savings in the budget of the Parks Department which was expected to result from the reorganization and change in management.

As a result of that decision, it was necessary to change the existing contract with SMG, the private firm responsible for the management of those facilities under a public/private building operating contract. Because the new Evansville arena was expected to open Downtown in November 2011, it was also necessary to negotiate changes in the contract related to Roberts Stadium until the new arena opens. The contract for operation of Roberts Stadium could have been terminated at the end of 2010, but the City needed to continue its operations for the first 10 months of 2011 to coincide with the new arena. Accordingly, the extension of the SMG contract was negotiated at the same time as were the changes to the scope of work resulting from the BA’s new responsibility. Although SMG was no longer responsible for those items which had been transferred to the BA, the SMG compensation arrangement was not modified. As part of the negotiations for this extension, SMG demanded the right to negotiate first for a contract to operate the new arena. Accordingly, the City began discussions with SMG for the purpose of reaching an understanding that would form the basis for a recommendation for the award of a professional services contract for the management of the new arena.

During the course of those discussions, the City sought to change the financial arrangements in the new contract to focus more effectively on the desired outcomes. Specifically, the City wanted to define financial incentives for SMG to incent the strategic goals of the new arena, such as downtown activity, event attendance and bottom-line performance, rather than gross revenues as currently structured. Of particular focus was the use of net cash flow rather than gross cash flow in order to place more emphasis on expenditure accountability and control. Within the first several months of the BA assuming maintenance and employee management, it became clear that expense management was an area open for significant improvement, as the projected savings of $25,000 per month was being achieved and surpassed.

The second area of focus was on the identification of the individuals to be assigned as SMG’s senior management staff on-site in Evansville. It was thought that the new arena’s role in the community and its potential was far different than that of Roberts Stadium and that staff with senior management experience with downtown arenas was critical, as was experience with the development and implementation of the grand opening activities. Finally, the potential for sponsorship and marketing opportunities in the new arena was significantly different from those in place at Roberts Stadium.

The discussions with SMG on these issues illuminated three points of contention. First, SMG was initially very reluctant to focus its financial incentives on net revenue or on attendance goals that reflected any activity significantly greater than that which was occurring already at Roberts Stadium. Second, SMG believed that the existing staff at Roberts was sufficient to manage the new arena and that the lack of experience with grand openings would be offset by other SMG staff members coming to Evansville temporarily on an “as needed” basis. Finally, SMG believed that the functional transfers to the BA in March 2010 needed to be undone and that SMG should resume management of the City employees.

With these three issues being presented and a need to reach an agreement as soon as possible, the decision was made to issue an RFQ seeking companies to be considered in addition to SMG. The RFQ was issued and responses were received from SMG and two other companies. An interview team (“Committee”) consisting of John Friend (City Council), Andy Goebel (Building Authority Board of Directors), Ed Hafer (Evansville Regional Business Committee), Wayne Henning (Evansville Arena Project Committee), Kathy Kleindorfer (Evansville Arena Project Committee), and Sara Miller (Evansville Redevelopment Commission), with additional support from John Kish (Evansville Arena Project Director) and Dave Rector (Building Authority), conducted interviews on January 6, 2011.

The Procurement Process

When the RFQ was issued, it was emailed to eight (8) companies which had either been identified as active in this business or who had contacted the Arena Project office and expressed an interest. Because of the need for a rapid response, a deadline of three weeks for the initial response was established. It was brought to my attention that the industry was concerned that Evansville was simply “going through the motions” and that SMG had a lock on the business. John Kish, the Arena Project Director, spoke with two vendors to assure them that the City was serious about considering other companies. As the RFQ was drafted, generic information was intentionally requested in an attempt to make a response relatively easy in order to encourage responses. Responses were received from SMG, VenuWorks and Central Illinois Arena Management, Inc. (AKA Southern Indiana Arena Management; operators of the arena in Bloomington, IL). Interviews with each company occurred on January 6, 2011.

The following items were reported to me concerning the proposals and interviews:

A. Central Illinois Arena Management

This is a small company which manages one arena in Bloomington, IL. One principal of this firm had been active in the effort to convince the City government to fund that arena project. They have managed the facility for a number of years. The facility is operated in part with services provided by City employees so the BA arrangement did not present them with concerns.

The company discussed their focus on management and the ability to attract talent to their building. They are part of a booking coalition of “independently” managed arenas (“independently” meaning not operated by one of the larger companies). They had previously met with the Evansville Arena staff in June 2010 and were proud to report that they had 13 concerts on their calendar through the end of 2010 while Roberts had only three.

Their proposal was to have one of the two owners move to Evansville to start up an operation for the new arena which would likely include the move of one other senior manager.

While the Committee was enthusiastic about the abilities and personalities of the two owners, in the end, the Committee concluded that there was an inadequate number of experienced staff in the company to support a start-up in Evansville. There was also an obvious vulnerability to some accident happening to one of the two owners and there being inadequate support to fill the resulting void.

B. VenuWorks

VenuWorks has been managing arenas and other public assembly facilities for a number of years and is currently managing 17 facilities in 10 cities. They focus on 10,000 – 12,000 seat facilities and smaller. They have a depth of experience with their senior management staff (as shown in the proposal) and have significant experience with the opening of arenas of this size in urban areas. The interview team presented by VenuWorks included a proposed General Manager, who they refer to as an Executive Director. The title reflects the thought that the person is intended to integrate in the governance structure of the owner. The Executive Director is expected to be the face of the arena to the public, when appropriate, and to the governing officials. The individual presented had a focus on marketing and booking acts.

The corporate staff was also impressive. VenuWorks asserted that the support provided by staff of the company to each individual facility was much more intensive than other companies would provide. They discussed the frequency of corporate reviews of local Executive Directors, including financial management, operations and client relations matters.

To book events, VenuWorks relies on both the local management team and two corporate talent buyers. The Committee felt that the corporate staff had substantial experience and was an active part of the support structure for local management.

The Committee had several concerns. First, they did not hear VenuWorks speak of its experience running an arena with a Division I NCAA presence. The company addressed this issue during a second interview by describing the experience of the various individuals in operating such a facility although none of the current facilities have that situation. Second, the Committee was concerned about the coordination of hockey and basketball and this was also addressed.

A significant question was presented about the prospect for conflict between one company managing The Centre and a second company managing the new arena. VenuWorks responded to this question on several levels. First, they described their experience in similar situations in other cities where SMG is operating another facility. Second, they described the realities of the marketplace and the differences between the two facilities as dictating which facility would draw which events. In essence, the differences between The Centre and the arena will be such that most events booked at The Centre would not be appropriate or feasible at the arena, and vice versa. Third, they emphasized that their goal was to do what was right for the community and they expected, particularly at the operating level, that the two companies would be cooperative.

VenuWorks also emphasized the market being a major force in the ability of the facility operator to draw events to the new arena. Evansville is a good market, well known to promoters. They asserted that their staff had relationships with all of the promoters currently coming to Evansville and those representing the acts which we hope to attract. After reviewing past activity at Roberts, they identified an opportunity for certain other types of shows to play in the new arena.

VenuWorks emphasized its desire to work with local vendors for food and supplies. It also expressed a commitment to the MBE/WBE goals and objectives.

The Committee asked for one final statement of why VenuWorks would be the best selection. VenuWorks replied that the new arena would be one of its premier buildings, and would get the appropriate attention of their corporate staff. We would be their most important client, not one of hundreds.

C. SMG

SMG is the world’s largest manager of publicly-owned entertainment facilities, with about 220 facilities under contract, including four (4) in Evansville.

The SMG presentation discussed their corporate capabilities. They brought eight (8) people to the interview, including Todd Denk, and six others who would not be based in Evansville. They proposed one individual who would be transferred to Evansville to be responsible for management of the new arena. When this individual was originally identified as a candidate for General Manager during early discussions, SMG asserted that Evansville “could not afford him.” He was also discussed as being an “on-call resource” for the opening of the arena. Because his experience is in building operations, this offer was thought to be helpful but somewhat duplicative of the services to be provided by the BA. The concern was that someone with more of a marketing focus and personality was needed.

The corporate experiences cited by SMG were significant, but its presentation left some Committee members asking where these capabilities had been during the past few years.

When SMG was asked to make a self-assessment of their operation at Roberts Stadium, they indicated that they did an excellent job and that any issue was directly related to the condition of the building. The Committee was troubled that SMG did not mention any maintenance issues previously identified by the BA staff, nor did they mention any issues with the marketing of either the events or of sponsorship opportunities within the building.

The Committee asked SMG to provide their views on how they would respond if they were not selected and therefore needed to work with another company as they operated The Centre. The response, which was not well received, was that SMG would focus on satisfying its client, the County, and that would be its focus. While understandable, most Committee members thought that some acknowledgment of the potential for working towards common goals and objectives would have been the preferred attitude.

In summary, the Committee concluded that SMG was a highly successful and skilled company, but that their long-term focus on the success of the new arena was a concern. One Committee member commented that he never expected to see most of “those people” in the interview ever again even if SMG were awarded the contract. They also concluded that the proffered candidate for the position of General Manager was unacceptable.

SMG Experiences

It is not possible to consider the selection of a management company without a hard look at the performance of the incumbent. Indeed, in most procurement processes of this type, the incumbent company will go to great lengths to illustrate the advantages of continuing its contract without the disruption that any change is likely to cause.

In this case, it is very significant to mention several issues based upon the City’s recent experiences with SMG at Roberts Stadium. First, the City’s decision to utilize the BA to provide maintenance and management of employees was driven by the failure of SMG to focus on the proactive management of the facility and the employees. SMG did little to schedule work in order to reduce overtime expenses. Maintenance of the building systems at Roberts Stadium and The Victory was also sorely lacking. The BA reports that air filters had not been cleaned for quite some time. Chairs, toilets and drinking fountains were also simply taken out of service rather than repaired. Unrepaired HVAC units are thought to have contributed to problems with sound equipment at The Victory.

Second, as a result of competitive procurement processes and different approaches to accomplishing certain aspects of the work, the BA has been able to reduce operating expenses in excess of our original projections. Savings against the SMG budget for the period of May – December 2010 include: $223,500 in employee costs, $78,000 in building maintenance costs and $60,000 in HVAC service contracts. Similar savings are seen in snow plowing contracts. In this context, it is also significant to note that VenuWorks is proposing to operate the new arena with 20% fewer FTE employees than SMG, another significant cost savings.

Third, rather than embrace the cost savings efforts of the BA, some SMG employees have actively resisted them. This resistance has been brought to the attention of senior SMG Evansville management with little initial effect. As part of an outside audit of operations, one Evansville manager reported to the auditor that he refused to cooperate with the BA in Roberts Stadium. Only when the auditor advised the employee that his continued employment was in jeopardy did he reconsider. Significantly, the local management structure has been revised with the SMG Regional Manager also now serving as the Evansville General Manager.

In summary, the City has been working to develop a contract for the operation of the new arena with financial incentives focused on its role in a revived downtown and with personnel experienced in opening, marketing and operating such venues. The City wants a company and individuals dedicated to making this work, not to explaining problems, and needs someone focused on Evansville and our success.

The City solicited proposals. A non-partisan group of community leaders conducted extensive interviews. The Committee unanimously recommended that the City award the contract to VenuWorks. The Committee worked hard to understand both the upsides and pitfalls of its choices and I support the results of the Committee’s work.

I hope City Council will recognize the unanimous recommendation of this non-partisan Committee and avoid politicizing the subsequent actions of the Redevelopment Commission as it reviews that recommendation at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday.

Please call me if you would like to discuss this matter in further detail.

IS IT TRUE? January 31, 2011

IS IT TRUE that the sunshines bright in the old Kentucky home but that the sunshine (as in laws) may be getting blocked by the doors to the back rooms on this side of the money saving bridge in the City of Evansville?…that sunshine laws have a purpose that is only fulfilled when they are allowed to fill the back rooms with the light of disclosure?

IS IT TRUE that the State of Indiana has open door (sunshine) laws that are defined by Indiana code 5-14-1.5-2?…that a principle purpose of these laws is to assure that closed door meetings are not used by politicians to determine what to do with taxpayer dollars?…that a public agency is defined , among other things, as “Any advisory commission, committee, or body created by statute, ordinance, or executive order to advise the governing body of a public agency?…that there are a few exceptions contained in 5-14-1.5-6.1?…that it is subject to legal review as to whether or not the stadium management advisory committee and the Evansville Redevelopment Commission are defined exceptions to this law?…that the meetings of the advisory committee have not been announced, posted, or open to the media?

IS IT TRUE that Indiana Code 5-14-1.5-2 is accessible through the following link?
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title5/ar14/ch1.5.html

IS IT TRUE CITY COUNTY OBSERVER MOLE # 3 earlier today predicted that a political battle looms between Mayor Weinzapfel and the Evansville City Council about yet another back room deal done outside of the halls of government to select the new firm to manage the new Downtown Evansville Arena?…that this clandestine action has become a fever pitch political issue? ….that City Councilmen, Dan McGinn’s e-mail we received from an confidential source and published earlier today concerning the fact that SMG lost the new arena contract has elected officials fuming?

IS IT TRUE that an Advisory Committee to study and recommend which marketing firm should promote the activities at the new Downtown Arena was appointed by the Mayor? ….that the members of this Committee are City Councilman, John Friend, Arena Project Manager John Kish, New Downtown Arena Project manager, Dave Rector, Vanderburgh County Building Authority Director, Andy Goebel, retired Vectren Executive, Sara Miller, Old National Bank Executive, Ed Hafer, retired architect, Wayne Henning, Retired banker and Past Chairmen of the new arena study Advisory Board and Kathy Kleindorfer an independent consultant?

IS IT TRUE that this Advisory Committee met several times to discuss which firm should manage the new Downtown Arena? ….that the last meeting of this committee was held at Vectren Corporation’s offices in downtown Evansville on the 2nd floor?….that when the committee seemingly decided to make final recommendations who they decided to manage the new arena that they were escorted the 8th floor Vectren Conference room? ….that Mayor Weinzapfel was already sitting at the head of the table in the conference room to hear the advisory committee that he appointed tell him what their final decision would be?…that this meeting was not announced, posted, or open to the media?

IS IT TRUE we wonder if this Committee took minutes of the discussion and actions taken at this gathering….we wonder since this meeting was to discuss the “People’s Business” and shall make their choice public to the Evansville Redevelopment Commission this coming Tuesday shouldn’t this adhere to Public Access (Sunshine) laws?

IS IT TRUE we wonder how this Advisory Committee can make a decision on who the best firm to Manage the new Downtown Arena since they didn’t discuss any of the terms of the contract to be offered by all the bidders for this project?

IS IT TRUE we predict that the Evansville Redevelopment Commission will be surprised who show up to make comments and ask questions about this political “Hot Potato” ?

Here is the message without edit or bias:

Hi John (Hamilton),

I would like for you to research an issue for me. Also I need some information.

Let me preface this request with a couple of remarks: I think the ERC has too much power for a board that is not accountable to the voters. I want the City Council to take back some of that authority. How can we do that?

Can we require that all non-competitively bid contracts that they handle be presented to Council for review and approval or at least discussion before they sign a contract?

Also, I am sure that by now you are aware that a controversy is boiling about who is to get the contract for management for the Arena. Who signs that contract? How can Council have a say in it? If in fact we can get control of the contract approval for this, how do we do it?
Please give me a call if you have any questions.

Parks Current Condition Confirms Dr. Troost’s Assertions that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE

This video speaks for itself so we are posting it without editing or bias.

The Growth Alliance for Greater Evansville (GAGE) is pleased to announce that Fat Head Media has recently located at Innovation Pointe in Downtown Evansville. Fat Head Media is owned and operated by creative master Damon Hancock. Hancock formed Fat Head Media approximately five years ago working primarily from his home office. As his communication company and clientele grew, Hancock felt that a larger space was needed. Fat Head Media now has a full video production studio at Innovation Pointe (Suite 302), with access to conference rooms, free internet and phone service as well as other amenities offered to tenants at Innovation Pointe.

Fat Head Media’s mission is to leverage the ever-changing world of media and web technology to communicate their client’s stories in unique ways. They offer many services such as video production, iPhone app development, social media strategies, web and mobile web design and more. Hancock and his creative team feel that it’s important to produce lasting relationships with their clients by offering flexibility in pricing, listening to their clients’ needs and wants, and by often producing agency quality services in less time at a lower cost. You may contact Fat Head Media at 318 Main Street –Suite 302, Evansville, IN 47708. Phone: 812.202.1422, Web: http://fatheadmedia.com.

Innovation Pointe is the Entrepreneurial Division of the Growth Alliance for Greater Evansville. Located in the heart of Downtown Evansville, Innovation Pointe strives to assist in the creation and growth of new businesses in the Evansville area to increase the wealth of our city and people. For more information on how to become a tenant, please contact the Growth Alliance for Greater Evansville (GAGE) by calling 812.401.4243.